An Ontario child welfare agency placed promoting belief in the Easter Bunny above preventing possible trauma when it removed two girls from a foster home because the Christian couple refused to lie about the bunny’s existence, an Ontario judge ruled.

In a stinging indictment of the actions of the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, a court judgment declared the CAS violated the foster parent’s right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression when the children were taken from their home and their fostering agreement terminated over the Easter Bunny dilemma.

Derek and Frances Baars, who lived in Hamilton at the time but have since moved to Edmonton, sued the Children’s Aid Society last year, saying a CAS worker insisted they proactively tell two girls in their care, aged three and four, the Easter Bunny was genuine, despite the couple’s belief that all lying is wrong.

The Baars sought no money, only a court declaration their rights were violated and that they not be blackballed from future fostering.

Justice Andrew Goodman of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice did just that in his 62-page judgment released Tuesday.

After a dispute over the Easter Bunny in 2016, the CAS removed the children, ended the Baars’ ability to foster other local children and, likely, interfered with the couple’s ability to foster children in Alberta, Goodman found.

Goodman said the CAS’s actions were “capricious,” “not in the children’s best interests” and potentially reveal an “underlying animus” by the society and its workers.

The Baars are Christians and members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

Francis Baar, the former foster mother, greeted the judgment with joy: “We are very thankful for it, that we’ve been vindicated. Our names have been cleared and we don’t have that hanging over us anymore,” she said in an interview.

The CAS said the children were not removed for the foster parents refusing to lie about the bunny but for refusing to support the birth mother’s wishes and failing to be respectful of cultural needs of the children.

“Nothing can be further from the truth,” Goodman wrote.

“It appears that the society would not be satisfied with anything other than confirmation from the Baars that they would lie about the Easter Bunny,” his judgment said.

Despite evidence showing the children were well cared for and the Baars provided a safe, secure and happy home, the CAS removed the children with only one day’s notice, an act, court heard in evidence from child experts, that was a “potentially traumatizing event.”

There are times when child welfare workers need to swoop in, such as physical or sexual abuse, Goodman wrote, but nuance over the Easter Bunny is not one of them.

“Given the disruption that these young children had already faced in their lives, there is no doubt that there was a need for stability, permanency and care in their lives. It is very clear from the evidence that the children were being cared for, that the Baars were providing them with stability and were turning their minds to the facets of care required for the children’s development and happiness.

“However, by taking the children away on such short notice, the Society took that away from them and contributed to the turmoil these children had already faced in their short lives. As (a CAS case worker) states in one of her case notes, ‘is it more important to have the Easter Bunny or permanency?’ The Society very clearly chose the Easter Bunny,” Goodman wrote.

Evidence was clear the Baars sincerely believe it is wrong to lie, including lying to promote belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. The Baars made their position clear to the CAS before being accepted as foster parents, the court heard.

At Christmas 2015, shortly after the girls arrived in their home, the Baars asked the birth mother — through a written book that is exchanged back and forth via the CAS — what presents the girls might like for Christmas. The mom’s reply was about various toys with no specific requests about Santa or other aspects of celebration.

Afterwards, the mom thanked the Baars for sending Christmas photos of the girls opening gifts and said they looked like they were “having fun,” adding, “Thank you for making Christmas a good time for them.”

There were no written requests from the mom to the Baars as Easter approached regarding the Easter Bunny, court heard, despite the mother offering requests and instructions on several other matters, such as their preferred hair care products.

The CAS had a “replete lack of evidence” as to the views of the mother and nothing about the alleged insistence on how Easter should be celebrated, Goodman found.

The only evidence offered at trial was testimony by CAS placement worker Tracey Lindsay, who was a witness “whose evidence I reject as principally unsubstantiated and somewhat self-serving,” Goodman wrote.

A child welfare expert, whose report was entered into evidence, said the best interests of the children “were lost sight of and considered secondary to Ms. Lindsay’s own agenda.”

After months of the girls being in their home and after the Easter Bunny discussions, Lindsay told the Baars she was afraid the Baars would discriminate against same-sex couples and if a gay couple was a prospective adoptive family they might teach the girls the couple was “living in sin,” court heard.

The Baars dismissed the concern. Court also heard there were no prospective adoptive parents, same sex or otherwise, as the children were not up for adoption.

“It seems likely that Lindsay’s discussion regarding prospective same-sex couples to the Baars was fueled by a potential stereotypical belief in the inability of Christians to support same-sex marriage,” Goodman ruled.

Dominic Verticchio, executive director of the Hamilton CAS, apologized to the Baars through the Post for what happened.

“We recognize what our mistakes were,” Verticchio said. “We respect the decision of the court… and we have to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

“I apologize for what the foster parents went through. I can’t change the past but I can change the future.”

As for the Baars, they are in the process of applying to adopt a child in Edmonton and hope the ruling helps their application move smoothly through the bureaucracy.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.